mattp

Yeah. We know all about "transfer payments." You have declined to address any of the substance of Tokogirl's post, or really much of anything else, except your disdain for socialism.

Refusing to discuss the issues is not a legitimate argument.

Try google. Search: Veterans Administration Healthcare Quality. You get a lot of government stuff, but you also get this: American Journal of Medical Quality We found that in-hospital mortality in 1 VA hospital and a nationwide sample of private-sector hospitals were similar, after adjusting for severity of illness. Although not directly generalizable to other VA hospitals, our findings nonetheless suggest that the quality of VA and private-sector care may be similar with respect to one important and widely used measure. American Journal of Managed Care Once disparaged as a bureaucracy providing mediocre care, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is recognized for leadership in clinical informatics and performance improvement, cares for more patients with proportionally fewer resources, and sets national benchmarks in patient satisfaction and for 18 indicators of quality in disease prevention and treatment. Annalys of Internal Medicine Diabetes processes of care and 2 of 3 intermediate outcomes were better for patients in the VA system than for patients in commercial managed care. However, both VA and commercial managed care had room for improvement, especially for blood pressure control. I realize you don't check any of my links, but I already posted a link with similar information.

The weather radar loop makes it appear as if the end is nigh.

Yes and no. In my mind, we have to keep talking about this because so many Americans and politicians keep arguing that we can and should rely upon American military strength as the answer to just about every "situation" that comes up. You are right that the debate over the run up to the war is a distraction from considerations of exactly what to do in Iraq now, but it is absolutely essential that we acknowledge how we got into this mess if we are going to avoid making things worse everywhere else. It is not enough to say, two years ago, that "yes, we were mislead" and then argue that it is only partisan muckraking to make any further mention of that fact or raise any question about whether we should conduct military operations and joint exercises and deploy troops or send arms everywhere from Pakistan to Patagonia.

Yeah. The last thing we need is for our doctors to start "going postal."

A quaint truism. The problem with all of this is that nobody is even trying to talk about what our prospects for any kind of improvement let alone success in Iraq may be. From Democrats and Republicans all we get is sound bites that are designed to stimulate an emotional response but no real information nor any actual discussion.

KK, where did I say I wanted to spend other people's cash? Aren't you the one who argued that tolls on a new 520 bridge would be a travesty? What do you think about public education -- is that socialism involving transfer payments? I don't know the reality but one of the sources I linked above argued that we already pay more -- you and I as taxpayers already pay more - than we would for universal coverage. If that is the case, would you still be against saving money and covering everybody? It might free up more change for highway 520.

Whatever, Fairweather. What you've shown in these three different discussions is that you know little about what you speak and have even less inclination to look anything up. Government-operated medical facilities are known for poor quality service? If we reform healthcare the government will actually run all the hospitals and employ all the doctors? Hilary wants to outlaw private doctors? You haven't heard whether Obama has anything specific to propose? All of this appears as if your primary source of information is your favorite talk show host or right wing blogger. Call it socialism - I don't care. My original point was that you've completely closed your mind because someone labeled a set of proposals as socialism. You have not even tried to debate that particular point.

Read the editorial I posted above. Then respond. Argue how you have not swallowed the "socialism" pill and abandoned effort to actually inform yourself. Take your time.

So that is your argument against "SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE" (gasp)? You don't know how much you pay for Comcast? Seriously, we're not talking about metaphysics here. It is basic healthcare that is on the plate. Draw the lines wherever you want. Your taxes already pay for it. Why not have it?

Yes, if it is the RIGHT thing to do and if it might actually SAVE US MONEY, why not?

Your punk made a pretty good point here. Aside from the clearly unimformed "if you guys have your way we'll have rats in the hospitals," do you have a point?

When I first started climbing one of the first accidents I heard of which occurred in a place where I was climbing involved somebody who was killed falling underneath a snowpatch and getting swept underneath it in a stream entering the snow from a cliff band. that was 35 years ago. I have been fearful of (cautious with) the upper margin moat situations we regularly cross ever since. I think I'll be careful for the next 35 years, provided I am lucky enough to be climbing that long.

With our bungling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and declaring ourselves unaccountable under International law, I think it is fair to say we've scared the crap out of our allies, too. Like KK says, it may be a mixed bag - but there have been attacks in Europe and the Middle East is not looking all rosy or anything so on the whole our exercise of foreign policy cannot have been reassuring.

Did you get that from our intelligence community that Scott seems to worship? That is the dumbest thing you've posted for quite a while.

That's the point, Akhalteke. We cannot "win the war on terrorism" through military action. All this rah rah rah we have to take the fight to the terrorists so they don't bring it here is straight up crap. The closely associated "we have to fight to a win in Iraq or the terrorists are going to come get us" is propaganda intended to sidetrack any national dialogue about what our goals may be and what the prospects of accomplishing any of them really are. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

I admire your skepticism, Bill, but do you really think you should not consider the opinions of anybody who can't provide links to back up their opinions? Clearly, if somebody like me asserts that we subsidize oil companies you are right to ask yourself: is there a basis for that or is it just urban myth or ideal-driven demagoguery, but Mr. Stash's suggestion that political loyalty and favoritism would color the Bush administration's appointments of post-invasion administrators certainly comports with every thing we have ever heard about virtually any appointment made by Bush and company. Why WOULDN'T you believe it? Billcoe: doubting thomas.

Lame. Clearly we SHOULD be concerned about whether our government's actions are making us safer or not, and we SHOULD NOT rely upon the "intelligence community" to tell us the answers.

The success of this book is amazing. Wasn't it the first of its kind? It's been copied by everybody and their brother and some of the selections are for sure out of date or reflect the authors' specific climbing resumes, but they did a great job in my opinion. I've climbed a dozen routes from "the list," and half of them before the book came out. Bugaboo Spire East Ridge South Howser Tower West Buttress Mount Temple East Ridge Mount Rainier Liberty Ridge Forbidden Peak West Ridge Mount Stuart North Ridge Liberty Bell Mountain Liberty Crack Wolf's Head East Ridge Petit Grepon South Face Middle Cathedral Rock East Buttress El Capitan Nose Route Lover's Leap Traveler Buttress All of these were excellent climbs.

Prusik is good.

We all agree that time will tell. You may not argue this way (at least no on this page of this thread) but plenty of "ordinary conservative voters" as you call them maintain that the ends justify the means so our president did the right thing to lie, there was nothing wrong with undertaking extraordinary rendition and they don't mind if "rules were broken" at Abu Ghraib or Guantanimo because "everything has changed since 911," and they claim that we don't have proof that Bush's men outed Plame when in fact we know that is exactly what happened. Plenty argued that the war was not about oil, and many still do because they don't want to acknowledge the obvious: we didn't go in there to make Iraq better for Iraqi's - we went in there to make it friendlier to our oil interests. Some of it is just wishiful thinking or "my country right or wrong," but clearlyli there is a big dose of hypocrisy here: it is OK if we use military means to pursue OUR economic interests, but "in this day and age civilized nations (Russia) don't do it."

How can you possibly argue that our war "didn't cause anything?" I agree that time will tell how it turns out, but there is no denying that WE CAUSED THIS PARTICULAR MESS.

Scott, thanks for the history lesson. Yes, Saddam was a bad guy. He was our friend for a long time, though -- even when he "gassed his own people." Either way, that doesn't change the fact that OUR ACTION has caused the current crisis. And you point out that his actions were "contrary to everything we believe in?" Aren't those of your Commander in Chief also contrary to everything we believe in? Lying to the American people to go to war that was waged for control of foreign oil resources? Authorizing kidnapping and torture? Outing a secret agent for revenge against her husband? With your argument here you are only proving the premise of the original post to this thread - or at least supporting it.

Alkahete, we have been told that victory is at hand for over five years now and the fact is that bug is right: we cannot sustain the military strength we have deployed there nor can we afford to keep paying everyone to hold off on that civil war. And, yes, we in fact DID torch it off. Saddam had it under wraps.